The Case of Philippine Fisheries
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
POPULATION, RESOURCES, AND PATTERNS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE: THE CASE OF PHILIPPINE FISHERIES TOMAS VERGEL C. JAMIR MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY CORVALLIS, OREGON 97331 1988 POPULATION, RESOURCES, AND PATTERNS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE: THE CASE OF PHILIPPINE FISHERIES by TOMAS VERGEL C. JAMIR RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COLLEGE OF OCEANOGRAPHY OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY CORVALLIS, OREGON 97331 IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE SEPTEMBER, 1988 In memory of DAVID CAIMOL JAMIR (1918-1986) ... a true fisherman by heart, the peoples respected maestro, and a good and loving father. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to the following: Dr. William Pearcy for his patience, constructive criticisms and guidance throughout my stay in the program; to the other members of my final examination committee, Drs. Jefferson Gonor and Bruce deYoung for the valuable time and critical insights/comments that they provided while reviewing this paper, to Prof. James Good, Kathryn Howd, and Donna Obert for their generous help and encouragement; and to Drs. Gordon Matzke and Charles Warren for providing me with a fresh and radically different perspective of looking into Philippine fisheries. My deepest gratitude also goes to the Gonzales family for their kindness and moral support, most especially to Dr. Manolette Gonzales for serving as my informal mentor and primary "testing ground" for my ideas; to Dr. Kevin Hopkins and Margarita Hopkins for providing me with a lot of useful materials and references on Philippine fisheries; to Dr. Magdalena Giron and Miriam Gonzales for their superb Filipino cooking; to Dr. Flerida Caririo, Mr. and Mrs. Crisostomo de Guzman, John Jamerlan, and Helena Molina for their companionship and for some of the "crazy" things that we did which added spice to my stay here in Corvallis; and to my other Oceanographer and MRMer friends who are too many to mention. My appreciation also goes to my family, both here and in the Philippines: my mother and sister for their unending support and encouragement; to the Aligaen family, Luz Reyes, Vic Sambilay, and Greg Hermosa, Jr. for serving as my connecting link between the University of the Philippines and OSU; to my relatives in California for making me "at home while away from home"; to my other collegues from UP who are also here in the USA as exchange students; and to Carol Villanueva and Martha Rowan for providing a welcome respite to my sometimes monotonous life as a graduate student. Thanks and praise is mostly due to HIM for whom all of these things became possible. My study grant came from the Philippine government's fishery loan project with the World Bank through the College of Fisheries, University of the Philippines in the Visayas. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Methodology 3 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 4 A. Resources and Scarcity 4 B. Ideas of Carrying Capacity 5 C. Disaster and Development Scenario 6 Findings 8 A. Background Information 8 B. Environmental Factors 10 C. Population Factors 11 D. The Resource Base 12 E. Transport and Marketing System 14 F. The Production Technology 16 The Aquaculture Sector 16 The Marine Fisheries Sector 19 Discussion 21 A. The Framework 21 B. Population, Resources, and the Environment 22 C. The Aquaculture Sector 23 D. The Marine Fisheries Sector 24 E. The Co-existence of Sustenance and Commercial Fisheries 25 Conclusions and Policy Implications 26 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Species typically comprising the commercial groups of otter trawl catches in the Philippines (from Warpel Manacop, 1950). Table 2. Philippine regional road densities, 1973 (from Standing Szal, 1979). Table 3. Philippine fishpond production by region, 1981. Table 4. Estimated areas presently used in oyster farming, Philippines. Table 5. Estimated potential areas for oyster farming, Philippines. Table 6. Estimated potential areas for mussel farming, Philippines. Table 7. Philippine regional distribution of commercial fishing vessels, 1979. Table 8. Frequency distribution of fishing boats by tonnage and horsepower, Philippines, 1978-1979 (from Librero, et al., 1982). Table 9. Annual production per vessel classified by horsepower of motor used and by region, Philippines, 1978-1979 (from Librero, et al., 1982). Table 10. Types of fishing gear by region, Philippines, 1978-1979 (from Librero, et al., 1982). Table 11. Gross revenues, income, and profit per fishing unit by gear type and location, Philippines, 1978-1979 (from Librero, et al., 1982). LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Alternative carrying capacity consequences (from Newman Matzke, 1984). Figure 2. The disaster and development scenarios as responses to population growth (from Newman Matzke, 1984). Figure 3. Bathymetry of Southeast Asian region (from Chullasorn Martosubroto, 1986). Figure 4. Foreign trade of fishery products, 1960-1979. Figure 5. Natural hazards in Southeast Asian region (from Kent Valencia, 1985). Figure 6. Climatic types of the Philippines (from PCARRD, 1983a). Figure 7. Surface currents: (a) February, (b) August in Southeast Asian region (from Wyrtki, 1961). Figure 8. Regional boundaries of the Philippines (from Standing Szal, 1979). Figure 9. Philippine population growth from pre-colonial period up to the present (from various sources). Figure 10. Population sizes of the major urban areas of the Philippines (from Cheetam Hawkins, 1976). Figure 11. Philippines regions classified as metropolitan, more urbanized, less urbanized, and frontier regions, 1939, 1960, and 1970 (from Pernia, 1977). Figure 12. Geographical distribution of shrimps in Southeast Asian region (from Chullasorn Martosubroto, 1986). Figure 13. Geographical distribution of goatfishes in Southeast Asian region (from Chullasorn Martosubroto, 1986). Figure 14. Geographic distribution of sardines in Southeast Asian region (from Chullasorn Martosubroto, 1986). Figure 15. Geographical distribution of coastal tunas in. Southeast Asian region (from Chullasorn Martosubroto, 1986). Figure 16. Status of fishing grounds in the Philippines (from Smith, et al., 1980). Figure 17. Map of Visayan and Sibuyan Seas (from SCSP, 1976). Figure 18. Map of Sulu Sea, Bohol Sea, and Moro Gulf (from SCSP, 1977). Figure 19. Fishery map of eastern Philippines (from Smith, et al., 1980). Figure 20. Western Visayas fry distribution pattern (from Smith, 1981). Figure 21. The ten major Philippine fish marketing centers. Figure 22. Interregional trade in milkfish fry, July-September, 1976 (from Smith, 1981). Figure 23. The major land, air, and sea transportation linkages in the Philippines (from various sources). Figure 24. Distribution of fishponds in the Philippines (from Ohshima, 1973). Figure 25. Annual productivities of Philippine fishponds (from Ohshima, 1973). Figure 26. Fish pen belt and fish sanctuary in Laguna de Bay lake (from Smith, et al., 1980). Figure 27. Areas sampled by Librero, et al., 1982. POPULATION, RESOURCES, AND PATTERNS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE: THE CASE OF PHILIPPINE FISHERIES TOMAS VERGEL C. JAMIR INTRODUCTION: It has been a year now since I started on this MRM project - initially with just the idea of looking into the applicability of the U.S. Fishery Conservation and Management Act to Philippine fishery conditions. However, the deeper I searched the literature, the more I realize the complexity of the problem and the need to limit the scope of my topic. After studying a multitude of "expert" opinions and ideas (often piece meal and conflicting with each other) on how to approach third world fishery problems, I finally selected a few promising ones for further development and testing. After months of tinkering with each possible approach or strategy I realized that most of them actually follow the same general pattern or paradigm and lead to a similar analyses of the problem and similar set of solutions. The low success rates of fishery projects attest to the inadequacy of these approaches. While the numerous failures and slow progress of fishery development programs in the Philippines and other Asian countries have been fairly well documented and a number of empirical studies conducted on the subject (see for example: Emmerson, 1975, 1980; Baum & Maynard, 1976 a-d; Smith, et al., 1980; Marr, 1982; Librero, et al., 1982; Yater, 1982; Smith & Mines, 1982; Spoehr, 1984; Samson, 1985), what seems to be lacking is a sound theoretical framework that will integrate and provide a clear meaning to the present mass of data. For example, a number of intriguing puzzles still remain unsolved, such as: * Why have motorization of fishing boats or modernization of fishing techniques and aquacultural methods spread fairly rapidly in restricted pockets of the country but left neighboring regions virtually untouched? * Why have attempts of government and donor agencies to bypass "primitive" fishing or aquaculture methods for more advanced techniques through various development projects and programs repeatedly failed? 1 * Why has the spread of mechanization/modernization in the Philippines been slower in areas where there is an abundance of resources and lower population density as compared to areas where labor is abundant, wages are low, and resources are supposedly overfished when historically, the rapid spread of mechanical equipment and technology has been associated with an abundance of resources? When existing observations such as above do not correspond anymore to standard theories